semi-pelagianism defined

[BWV 1080]

This is a good article which defines semi-pelagianism and demonstrates that all Arminian and Catholic communions renounce this heresy. Some Calvinists seem to be very quick to accuse non-Reformed Christians of this heresy while, on the other hand, some posts I have read on this forums supposedly supporting Arminianism have crossed the line into semi-pelagianism.​

​

[size=+2]

[size=+2]A Primer on Semi-Pelagianism and Arminianism[/size]

[size=-1]The position of many Protestants (particularly many Calvinists) on this issue is hopelessly contradictory and incoherent, with regard to the soteriology of Arminianism and/or Pelagianism and semi-Pelagianism. The definition of the latter is as follows (from two highly authoritative non-Catholic sources):[/size]

[size=-1] [Semi-Pelagianism], while not denying the necessity of Grace for salvation, maintained that the[/size]
[size=-1] first steps towards the Christian life were ordinarily taken by the human will and that Grace[/size]
[size=-1] supervened only later.[/size]

[size=-1] {Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, ed. F.L. Cross, Oxford Univ. Press, rev. 1983, p.1258}[/size]

[size=-1]The Encyclopedia Britannica (1985 ed., vol. 10, p.625) states:[/size]

[size=-1] The result of Semi-Pelagianism, however, was the denial of the necessity of God's unmerited,[/size]
[size=-1] supernatural, gracious empowering of man's will for saving action . . . From [529] . . .[/size]
[size=-1] Semi-Pelagianism was recognized as a heresy in the Roman Catholic Church.[/size]

[size=-1]Indeed, the Catholic Church - despite constant bogus and astonishingly uninformed claims by Calvinists - has vigorously opposed Pelagianism in all forms from the time of St. Augustine. The Second Council of Orange (529 A.D.), accepted as dogma by the Catholic Church, dogmatically taught in its Canon VII:[/size]

[size=-1] If anyone asserts that we can, by our natural powers, think as we ought, or choose any good[/size]
[size=-1] pertaining to the salvation of eternal life . . . without the illumination and inspiration of the Holy[/size]
[size=-1] Spirit . . . he is misled by a heretical spirit . . . [goes on to cite Jn 15:5, 2 Cor 3:5][/size]

[size=-1]Likewise, the ecumenical Council of Trent (1545-63): Chapter V, Decree on Justification:[/size]

[size=-1] . . . Man . . . is not able, by his own free-will, without the grace of God, to move himself unto[/size]
[size=-1] justice in His sight.[/size]

[size=-1]And Canon I on Justification:[/size]

[size=-1] If anyone saith that man may be justified before God by his own works, whether done through[/size]
[size=-1] the teaching of human nature or that of the law, without the grace of God through Jesus Christ;[/size]
[size=-1] let him be anathema.[/size]

[size=-1]Catholic theologian Ludwig Ott describes the Catholic view:[/size]

[size=-1] As God's grace is the presupposition and foundation of supernatural good works, by which[/size]
[size=-1] man merits eternal life, so salutary works are, at the same time gifts of God and meritorious[/size]
[size=-1] acts of man.[/size]

[size=-1] {Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, Rockford, IL: TAN Books, 1974 (orig. 1952), p.264}[/size]

[size=-1]St. Augustine wrote (and the Catholic Church wholeheartedly concurs):[/size]

[size=-1] What merit of man is there before grace by which he can achieve grace, as only grace works[/size]
[size=-1] every one of our good merits in us, and as God, when He crowns our merits, crowns nothing[/size]
[size=-1] else but His own gifts?[/size]

[size=-1] {Ep. 194,5,19; in Ott, p.265}[/size]

[size=-1]The concept of merit and its corollary reward is well-supported in Scripture: Mt 5:12, 19:17,21,29,[/size]
[size=-1]25:21, 25:34 ff., Lk 6:38, Rom 2:6, 1 Cor 3:8, 9:17, Col 3:24, Heb 6:10, 10:35, 11:6, 2 Tim 4:8,[/size]
[size=-1]Eph 6:8. Trent must be understood in this light, and nothing in it contradicts 2nd Orange, Scripture, or the doctrine of all grace as originating from God, not man. Thus, neither Trent nor Catholicism is Pelagian or semi-Pelagian.[/size]

[size=-1]Arminianism derives, classically, from the Remonstrance of 1610, a codification of the teachings of Jacob Arminius (1559-1609). Here are the 3rd and 4th articles of five (emphasis added):[/size]

[size=-1] III.That man has not saving grace of himself, nor of the working of his own free-will,[/size]
[size=-1] inasmuch as in his state of apostasy and sin he can for himself and by himself[/size]
[size=-1] think nothing that is good--nothing, that is, truly good, such as saving faith is,[/size]
[size=-1] above all else. But that it is necessary that by God, in Christ and through his Holy[/size]
[size=-1] Spirit he be born again and renewed in understanding, affections and will and in[/size]
[size=-1] all his faculties, that he may be able to understand, think, will, and perform what is[/size]
[size=-1] truly good, according to the Word of God [John 15:5].[/size]

[size=-1] IV.That this grace of God is the beginning, the progress and the end of all good; so[/size]
[size=-1] that even the regenerate man can neither think, will nor effect any good, nor[/size]
[size=-1] withstand any temptation to evil, without grace precedent (or prevenient),[/size]
[size=-1] awakening, following and co-operating. So that all good deeds and all movements[/size]
[size=-1] towards good that can be conceived in through must be ascribed to the grace of[/size]
[size=-1] God in Christ. But with respect to the mode of operation, grace is not irresistible; for it is written[/size]
[size=-1] of many that they resisted the Holy Spirit [Acts 7 and elsewhere passim].[/size]

[size=-1]Much more documentation from the many Arminian denominations could easily be produced. But two shall suffice at this point. John Wesley and the Methodists have long been a target of Calvinist suspicion and disdain. Wesley's Twenty-Five Articles of Religion (1784), considered normative for Methodists, states in its Article VIII ("Of Free Will" - virtually the same as Article X of the Anglican Thirty-Nine Articles); emphasis added:[/size]

[size=-1]The condition of man after the fall of Adam is such that he can not turn and prepare himself, by his own natural strength and works, to faith and calling upon God; wherefore we have no power to do good works, pleasant and acceptable to God, without the grace of God by Christ preventing us, that we may have a good will, and working with us, when we have that good will.[/size]

​

[size=-1] {in Creeds of the Churches, ed. John H. Leith, Garden City: NY: Doubleday Anchor, 1963, p.356}[/size]

[size=-1]Likewise, in the Lutheran Formula of Concord (1580), the distinction between Melanchthonian Arminianism and semi-Pelagianism could not have been more clearly stated (emphasis added):[/size]

[size=-1]We also reject the error of the Semi-Pelagians who teach that man by virtue of his own powers could make a beginning of his conversion but could not complete it without the grace of the Holy Spirit.[/size]

[size=-1]{Part I: Epitome, Article II: Free Will, Antitheses: Contrary False Doctrine, section 3; cf. Solid Declaration, Article II: Free Will, error #2: "coarse Pelagians"}[/size]

​

[size=-1]Error #3 presents a critique of a twisted straw man version of Tridentine Catholicism's soteriology, supposedly semi-Pelagian, which only serves to reinforce the fact that confessional Lutheranism indeed vigorously opposes semi-Pelagian doctrine.[/size]

http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ179.HTM[/size]

 

[nobdysfool]

This is a good article which defines semi-pelagianism and demonstrates that all Arminian and Catholic communions renounce this heresy. Some Calvinists seem to be very quick to accuse non-Reformed Christians of this heresy while, on the other hand, some posts I have read on this forums supposedly supporting Arminianism have crossed the line into semi-pelagianism.​

[size=+2]http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ179.HTM[/size]

Interesting....and you are correct, some here HAVE crossed the line into semi-Pelagianism, despite their earnest attempts to deny it. The tree is certainly known by its fruit....

 

[frumanchu]

This is a good article which defines semi-pelagianism and demonstrates that all Arminian and Catholic communions renounce this heresy. Some Calvinists seem to be very quick to accuse non-Reformed Christians of this heresy while, on the other hand, some posts I have read on this forums supposedly supporting Arminianism have crossed the line into semi-pelagianism.​

​

Interesting. I would like however to point out that what you quoted from Trent does not echo what was said at Orange. What you quoted has more to do with good works rather than faith. The view expressed at Orange is essentially that man cannot believe without a prevenient work of grace by God. By the time you get to Trent you are talking about a foundationally different view of merit and justification.

Regardless though, you have rightly pointed out that classic Arminianism is not necessarily semi-Pelagian (although I would argue that is only by virtue of inconsistency).

 

[Van]

Let me see if I understand this thread. If I believe that folks hear the gospel externally, brought by the grace of God through the Holy Spirit, and respond to the gospel by accepting they are wicked and deserve condemnation, and seek mercy by trusting in Christ, then I have crossed the line, (between truth and heresy?) into semi-Pelaganism. Ok...

 

[BWV 1080]

Let me see if I understand this thread. If I believe that folks hear the gospel externally, brought by the grace of God through the Holy Spirit, and respond to the gospel by accepting they are wicked and deserve condemnation, and seek mercy by trusting in Christ, then I have crossed the line, (between truth and heresy?) into semi-Pelaganism. Ok...

If you believe that this decision requires grace, then you are not a semi-pelagian. If you believe that an individual can come to faith "by their own bootstraps", without grace preceeding, then you are a semi-pelagian

 

[Van]

I assume you are refering to grace being supernatural mind manipulation, not the grace manifested externally? If that is the case, then I am guilty. As far as I can determine, Total Depravity is a fiction and Irresistible grace is a fiction. I have looked at a lot of the scriptural support for these doctrines and they are equivocal at best, and frequently indicate to my eye the opposite of the asserted doctrine.

 

[BWV 1080]

I assume you are refering to grace being supernatural mind manipulation, not the grace manifested externally? If that is the case, then I am guilty. As far as I can determine, Total Depravity is a fiction and Irresistible grace is a fiction. I have looked at a lot of the scriptural support for these doctrines and they are equivocal at best, and frequently indicate to my eye the opposite of the asserted doctrine.

Where did I say that? The Arminian position is that grace may resistable, but is necessary to come to faith. From Arminius:

That this grace of God is the beginning, the progress and the end of all good; so
that even the regenerate man can neither think, will nor effect any good, nor
withstand any temptation to evil, without grace precedent (or prevenient),
awakening, following and co-operating. So that all good deeds and all movements
towards good that can be conceived in through must be ascribed to the grace of
God in Christ. But with respect to the mode of operation, grace is not irresistible; for it is written
of many that they resisted the Holy Spirit [Acts 7 and elsewhere passim].

 

[frumanchu]

As far as I can determine, Total Depravity is a fiction and Irresistible grace is a fiction.

In that case you are at least semi-Pelagian.

Classical Arminianism and Augustinianism/Calvinism both assert that man is totally depraved and that he cannot believe apart from the prior work of the Holy Spirit within the believer (the two simply disagree on the efficacy of that work).

 

[Van]

BWV 1080 If you believe in the Calvinist doctrine of total depravity, then some supernatural action by the holy spirit is required to enable folks to believe. That is what I meant by supernatural mind manipulation.

I am now a conservative christian that is non-calvinist, non Arminian, and semi Pelagian with leanings toward Open Theism, whatever that means. And all this from independent Bible study. The question you have got to ask yourselves is "Am I out to lunch, or does the Emperior have no clothes.

 

[BWV 1080]

BWV 1080 If you believe in the Calvinist doctrine of total depravity, then some supernatural action by the holy spirit is required to enable folks to believe. That is what I meant by supernatural mind manipulation.

I am now a conservative christian that is non-calvinist, non Arminian, and semi Pelagian with leanings toward Open Theism, whatever that means. And all this from independent Bible study. The question you have got to ask yourselves is "Am I out to lunch, or does the Emperior have no clothes.

You are "out to lunch" with 2000 years of Christian teaching. Ask yourself "is the entire historic Church wrong on this issue or am I in error?". Wiser and holier people than ourselves have thought and prayed deeply on these issues for centuries and IMO the chance that someone will through "independent bible study" uncover some great lost truth of the faith is nil.

 

[tigersnare]

You are "out to lunch" with 2000 years of Christian teaching. Ask yourself "is the entire historic Church wrong on this issue or am I in error?". Wiser and holier people than ourselves have thought and prayed deeply on these issues for centuries and IMO the chance that someone will through "independent bible study" uncover some great lost truth of the faith is nil.

I've found by studying lots of the old heresies that crept up and were denounced, that most of my false beliefs and misunderstandings of God had already come up and been delt with in the past.

We have to decide if we are going to value Church history and the saints of old. There were some brilliant men who had nothing to do but teach, read, think, and write. I contend it would even be a denial of the work of the Holy Spirit working in these Saints/the Church to disregard their writings as of lower level scholarship than what we can come up in our little "Me, and My bible" bubbles.

Why read Calvin, Luther, Spurgeon and the Puritans?? They were a WHOLE lot smarter than me for one. But these Guys ate, slept, breathed and bled the bible. I would challenge anyone to find any modern preachers or theologians who are as dedicated to the word as these guys were. Perhaps there are some, maybe by God's Grace there are many. I'm not saying they were all right, but had I not branched out of my little bible bubble, I would easily be into 10-15 different heresies by now.

All this to say, God has given his Church some very brilliant minds and teachers these past 2000 years. Perhaps it would benifit us to see what they had to say.

 

[Van]

BWV 1080, I agree with your conclusion as you framed it, but perhaps you overstated it a tad? I am not the only non-calvinist on the planet. And I think we are talking about about 400 years not 2000.

 

[Van]

Tigersnare, I have read Luther and Calvin in English translation and much of what they wrote matches my understanding of scripture. But I think Calvin was clueless concerning predestination, as do other scholars. I have a great respect for those that studied the bible and have learned a lot from them. I am totally dependent upon translation done by scholars. But none of them have a perfect understanding, they all held to some degree mistaken views. I agree with Calvin in the main, on the endurance of the saved for example, yet disagree with his flawed understanding of predestination. What I meant by independent was I do it at home using books and the internet, not that I do not consider the thoughts and insights of others.

 

[BWV 1080]

BWV 1080, I agree with your conclusion as you framed it, but perhaps you overstated it a tad? I am not the only non-calvinist on the planet. And I think we are talking about about 400 years not 2000.

I am not a Calvinist and regarding semi-Pelagianism and the need for preveinent grace, the controversy goes back at the very least to Augustine in the 4th century. I disagree with the irresistibility of this grace, but believe no one can come to know God without it.

 

[Van]

BWV 1080, lets talk a bit about "Prevenient Grace" Rather than start with some understand of the idea, since I do not, I looked up "prevenient" and learned it means something that comes before something. So I gather, Prevenient Grace, means receiving grace before salvation. So far so good. Now grace has several facets, but I think the one that applies here is "divine favor"; God does stuff for us to enable us to be saved. Again, so far, so good. My understanding of this grace is God creating us with the capacity to choose life or death, God setting before us, through Christ and His gospel, the opportunity to trust in God and His Christ. All this, strictly speaking is prevenient grace. And so by this perspective I am not a semi-Pelagan, because I believe God helps us find Him.

But none of this is really what we are talking about. Nope, it is a smokescreen. What we are talking about is that Arminians believe in Total Depravity. And therefore, in order to come to Jesus, we must be enabled by resistible grace, a supernatual influence upon all men. Pardon me, but the need for this understanding of Prevenient Grace is predicated on the fiction of total depravity. What I did is reject total depravity because I find the support for the idea lacking, and without it, no need for anything but the prevenient grace (God stretching out his arms to a stubborn and rebellious people) described in the Bible.

 

[tigersnare]

What I meant by independent was I do it at home using books and the internet, not that I do not consider the thoughts and insights of others.

To the exclusion of the Church and Pastors?

 

[frumanchu]

BWV 1080, I agree with your conclusion as you framed it, but perhaps you overstated it a tad? I am not the only non-calvinist on the planet. And I think we are talking about about 400 years not 2000.

From the Council of Orange (529 AD):

CANON 4. If anyone maintains that God awaits our will to be cleansed from sin, but does not confess that even our will to be cleansed comes to us through the infusion and working of the Holy Spirit, he resists the Holy Spirit himself who says through Solomon, "The will is prepared by the Lord" (Prov. 8:35, LXX), and the salutary word of the Apostle, "For God is at work in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure" (Phil. 2:13).

CANON 5. If anyone says that not only the increase of faith but also its beginning and the very desire for faith, by which we believe in Him who justifies the ungodly and comes to the regeneration of holy baptism -- if anyone says that this belongs to us by nature and not by a gift of grace, that is, by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit amending our will and turning it from unbelief to faith and from godlessness to godliness, it is proof that he is opposed to the teaching of the Apostles, for blessed Paul says, "And I am sure that he who began a good work in you will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ" (Phil. 1:6). And again, "For by grace you have been saved through faith; and this is not your own doing, it is the gift of God" (Eph. 2:8). For those who state that the faith by which we believe in God is natural make all who are separated from the Church of Christ by definition in some measure believers.

CANON 6. If anyone says that God has mercy upon us when, apart from his grace, we believe, will, desire, strive, labor, pray, watch, study, seek, ask, or knock, but does not confess that it is by the infusion and inspiration of the Holy Spirit within us that we have the faith, the will, or the strength to do all these things as we ought; or if anyone makes the assistance of grace depend on the humility or obedience of man and does not agree that it is a gift of grace itself that we are obedient and humble, he contradicts the Apostle who says, "What have you that you did not receive?" (1 Cor. 4:7), and, "But by the grace of God I am what I am" (1 Cor. 15:10).

CANON 7. If anyone affirms that we can form any right opinion or make any right choice which relates to the salvation of eternal life, as is expedient for us, or that we can be saved, that is, assent to the preaching of the gospel through our natural powers without the illumination and inspiration of the Holy Spirit, who makes all men gladly assent to and believe in the truth, he is led astray by a heretical spirit, and does not understand the voice of God who says in the Gospel, "For apart from me you can do nothing" (John 15:5), and the word of the Apostle, "Not that we are competent of ourselves to claim anything as coming from us; our competence is from God" (2 Cor. 3:5).

This teaching did not originate in the 16th Century, Van. You may want to extend your "independent study" a little.

As far as your rejection of total depravity, I think it is a matter of time and consistency before you slide fully into Pelagianism.

 

[Van]

This teaching did not originate in the 16th Century, Van. You may want to extend your "independent study" a little.

As far as your rejection of total depravity, I think it is a matter of time and consistency before you slide fully into Pelagianism.

I am not sure of the purpose of this post, did you think the subject was semi-pelagan belief? I was refering to Calvinism and Arminianism. The articles of Remonstrance and the Council of Dort. As far as me slipping into something clearly in violation of the plain teachings of the Bible, do not fear.

 

[Van]

Frumanchu, lets review the information you posted.

Canon 4 says the LXX says "The will is prepared by the Lord." Now this may be true, but the version of the LXX I found puts it this way:
35 For my outgoings are the outgoings of life, and in them is prepared favor from the Lord.

And the NASB puts it this way:
35 For he who finds me finds life, and obtains favor from the Lord.

Note that Philippians 2:13 is refering to someone already saved, so this appears to be sophistry, supporting a pre-salvation assertion with a post salvation condition.

Without knowing what is meant by "infusion of the Holy Spirit" the apparent idea is supernatural internal mind influence.

My conclusion, it appears support for the false doctrine was obtained by misrepresenting scripture in AD 529.

Frumanchu, you can see the same sophistry in Canon 5, Philippians 1:6 refers to the post salvation condition, not the pre-salvation condition, and Ephesians 2:8-9 says the gift is salvation, not faith. So more sophistry in support of a false doctrine.

Similarly look at Canon 6. Supported by verses that do not in the slightest support the contention. We do not have but what we receive is very true, but if we received the capacity to trust in Christ, then the verse in no way supports the contention. Ditto for 1 Corinthians 15:10. Here we see the attempt to take something true about Paul, chosen to be an apostle from the womb, and redirected with the full apprehension of Paul on the road, to mean the indiscernable influence of the preselected elect.

Canon 7 is just more of the same, John 15:5 is saying that the unregenerate can do nothing good, that all the fruit from the labor to please God is nothing. It is not refering to spiritual inability prior to regeneration. This is read into the text by the Calvinists and others who believe in total depravity. Jesus said we are strive, and that we can find the narrow way that leads to life. 2 Corinthians 3:5 is refering to our condition in Christ, not before we are in Christ.

 

[john14_20]

You are "out to lunch" with 2000 years of Christian teaching. Ask yourself "is the entire historic Church wrong on this issue or am I in error?". Wiser and holier people than ourselves have thought and prayed deeply on these issues for centuries and IMO the chance that someone will through "independent bible study" uncover some great lost truth of the faith is nil.

Greetings all.

1080, this is a tough argument to support. Tigersnare has come in and agreed with you, so my comments are to you both.

The basic thrust of your posts is that those before us were more dedicated and more scholarly than we.

As such, if we are in disagreement with them, it is probably us that is wrong.

There are 2 major problems with this line of reasoning.

Firstly, it assumes agreement on issues by the preceeding theologians.

The more dedicated and scholarly theologians that came before us never came to agreement on many issues. If I am just supposed to believe those before me regarding predestination and atonement, whom should I choose?

Calvin or Arminius?

And if it right in your eyes for me to choose either one of these and reject the other, then why is it so bad to reject both?

Secondly, if we are all supposed to agree with history and not challenge the theology handed down to us - as you suggest - then there would have been no Protestant reformation.

Luther would have decided he was wrong because he was in disagreement with so much church tradition and history.

So which is it? Was Luther wrong and should we revert to the state of the church before 1500?

Or is it perfectly acceptable to challenge and critique those before us?

Blessings, Pete